« PreviousContinue »
is large enough in its activity to support all of the professional activities that are needed to help. That was one of our organizing principles.
Another principle was, to allow the people within the Service as much scope as was reasonable and practical for faster decision making and to heighten job satisfaction and management development.
So there were a body of principles which are sound, and which we sought how to apply in the new structure. At the time we arrived there were seven different levels of management between where the work was done until you got to headquarters.
Mr. CASEY. The one common complaint that ran through everyone's conversations was the lack of responsiveness to a need. Literally it took us 8 years to build a post office. The systems that evolved at headquarters were not practical. The length of time, the lack of understanding, that was the constant thing that ran through discussions again and again and again; and in attempting to address ourselves to that concern, this arrangement evolved.
Mr. McCloskey. Maybe a basic commonsense question, but do you have any sort of formalized feedback yet, Mr. Casey, from the people most affected-people in the management structure who are going to be moving and being reassigned and so forth?
Mr. Casey. Not really, because we have not determined which 80 will be the key management centers, and, by the way, it might not be 80; it might be 70; it might be 84. We are going to have to determine the specific number. We really have not. I have received lots of mail. I have received lots of telephone calls. I have had lots of discussions and, of course, there is concern out there and that is why we are trying to clarify as quickly as possible what will happen.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. So you say there is a wait-and-see attitude on the part of management?
Mr. CASEY. Yes, I would.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Garrity, I believe you wanted to add something
Mr. GARRITY. I think that is true, but to a substantial degree implementation of the reorganization is in the hands of the line managers in the organization. The regional Postmasters General are heading up the implementation team. They have consulted with their functional directors. They have worked with the people who have been in the former districts. Since nothing yet has been put into place, you cannot have that kind of reaction.
We have attempted in the process of implementation to involve as many people as we possibly can so there will be no surprises and the thinking that was applied has been hammered out against the practical knowledge and thinking of the people involved.
Mr. CASEY. Those five regional Postmasters General I spoke of, they are responsible for the implementation; they are the people that best know the needs of the field and the relationship of the field to headquarters and they are the ones that are doing it.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. They feel fine about everything right now, I would assume, since-
Mr. CASEY. No; I do not think anybody feels fine about everything. You are talking about those five gentlemen?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Right.
Mr. CASEY. Two of them have already been moved. One was moved into headquarters to become the Associate Postmaster General, and another one was moved into headquarters to head up a group named Facilities and Supply: procurement, real estate, purchasing, that sort of thing.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Garrity, do you want to synopsize or compress your statement or do you want to go on with general questioning?
Mr. GARRITY. I think we covered or General Casey covered it well. There were six things that would be looked at at each level: the authority delegated, the responsibilities they had, the need to have a responsive and effective service which suggested to collapse some level, the merging of certain functions and the focusing on a number of-approximately 80-large management sectional centers.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I, basically, have dozens, if not scores, of questions. I do not want to be real tedious today, but why don't I turn this over to Mr. Dymally for a question or two and we will let you proceed.
Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have three questions.
Mr. Casey, let me preface by saying the first question I am about to ask, you are not in a position to respond to the merits of it. I simply want to solicit your cooperation. I recently authored legislation which passed this committee with bipartisan support; in fact, every member of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, signed on to it. It is the adverse action bill which has passed the House unanimously and now is in the Senate, regarding dismissals, disciplinary action on the part of the Postal Service against Postmasters, and that bill is pending in the Senate now. I understand it will pass soon.
In my district I believe a great injustice has been experienced by a Postmaster there, and she is seeking some redress from this committee Chairman McCloskey has promised to look into the matter for me and possibly have a public hearing. The Postal Service has refused to be cooperative in supplying any necessary information or meeting with us. I trust in the interests of fairness that you will; and since you are new to this and you are not a party to this discipline, that you will instruct your staff to at least meet with the staff of Mr. McCloskey's committee to review the case.
If in your judgment this is a matter that you do not want to discuss publicly, I am sure the chairman would be pleased to go into executive committee or to meet with your staff privately. It is a very, very pressing matter in my district, and I trust that when I give you the case-and I do not want to discuss it publicly to prejudice her case or your position-that you will be most helpful in meeting with the staff and trying to resolve this problem.
Mr. CASEY. We will be cooperative, Mr. Congressman. I am not familiar with the case to which you refer.
Mr. DYMALLY. I think because of your lack of familiarity you will bring some objectivity to the case.
I had occasion to remember you recently. I got stuck at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport on Monday. I ended up in Baltimore at
2 o'clock in the morning. That was bad enough. That Thursday I got stuck again and I said to myself, I wonder if Brother Casey was still chairman, would this happen to me.
Mr. CASEY. I remember you very well, Mr. Dymally.
Mr. DYMALLY. I have two questions. According to your plan for reorganization of the Postal Service management structure, the key management centers, also known as super management sectional centers, were to be identified on March 12. Approximately 80 centers, I understand, will be established. Can you provide the committee with a list of these centers and if the list is not available, how soon might we receive it? Finally, could you tell me when and how did you determine where to locate these key centers.
Mr. Casey. They are the 80 largest areas that we have. In some cases geography would be controlling: Hawaii, maybe Alaska or places like that where they would not be of comparable size. We have not selected them yet. We are in the process of selecting them and selecting the people to serve as the general managers of these divisions. I know that we are working on selecting these people this week.
Mr. GARRITY. It should be the early part of next week.
According to your reorganization plan, the top managers for the key centers are to be selected by March 21. Since that date is fast approaching, I assume you already have begun the selection process.
Mr. CASEY. Yes.
Mr. DYMALLY. Can you provide us with a list of those who will be named to the top managers, after the 21st, of course, and have you begun to notify postal managers who will be named to these positions? And, finally, what assurances can you give the committee that qualified minority and women managers have been fully considered for some of these top management positions?
Mr. CASEY. We are well aware of our obligations in that regard, Mr. Congressman. We keep it right in the forefront. We are working. We start tomorrow with the selection of the people, and I do not know-perhaps a week from today we can do that one. Let's put that on the same timeframe, but we are aware of the EEOC; we are well aware of the need to pay special attention to minorities and women.
Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you.
Finally, we agreed here that the committee staff will be in touch with you on this particular case and will supply the name and hopefully have a staff meeting privately. I would rather have a private meeting rather than go public on the meeting.
Mr. CASEY. I think that is important. I really do. We will take better care of you than D-FW.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. There is a vote in about 9 or 10 minutes on the House floor, so we will take a brief recess and be right back.
The Chair would like to apologize for his tardiness, but I was caught up in a debate with some students on several issues. As a matter of fact, as this mass of confusion continues in the saga of the Congress of the United States, it always seems that we have 10 different meetings at the same time, some of which it is hard for us to get away from.
I would like to apologize to my colleagues who were here patiently and, in particular, Mr. McCloskey who is the chairman of the Personnel and Modernization Subcommittee, and I appreciate his leadership in my absence.
I understand that my statement has been submitted for the record, and let me just proceed by asking several questions of the Postmaster General.
The Postmaster General asked me, if I ask any questions to please make them multiple choice. I presumed you meant the answers to the questions.
Mr. Casey. That is right.
Mr. LELAND. I will let you determine whether or not this is a multiple choice question. One of the issues that has been brought to me is the fact that in your reorganization of the Postal Service the employee unions have suggested to me that you have not yet met with them. I would like to know if that is the case.
Mr. CASEY. That is the case.
Mr. LELAND. Is there any particular reason why that is the case, Mr. Postmaster General?
Mr. CASEY. There is really only one, and that is generally their jobs and their positions and their people were not involved in any of the changes that we are going through.
Mr. LELAND. You do not think there is any place in your reorganization for them to participate or give some input since they have had a history of involvement and they tend to have the pulse of the employees? Is there not any place for them?
Mr. CASEY. The answer is obviously, yes, of course, there is and there will be, but at this particular point in time we are dealing with sort of the top of the pinnacle.
Mr. LELAND. That is a good choice of one of the multiple-choice answers. What kind of effects, if any, do you anticipate your reorganization having on next year's contract negotiations with those employee unions?
Mr. CASEY. I genuinely do not know. I really do not know. I think it is a very sensible question, one we have to pay attention to, but we are still a year away and we have not really evolved a strategy yet.
Mr. LELAND. From your viewpoint what should the Postal Service's goals be for those negotiations?
Mr. CASEY. Reasonable adjustments of pay and working conditions that we can live with, that do not seriously disrupt our ability to serve the public.
Mr. LELAND. Last Friday an employee of the Postal Service government relations office called my subcommittee staff to deny the rumor that you were going to resign. Were you aware of that, and that there was a rumor?
Mr. Casey. Yes.
Mr. LELAND. Can you tell us anything about how that rumor got started?
Mr. CASEY. I really cannot. This is some supposition. I really prefer not to go into it. It involves a Congressman's office, and it is only supposition and hearsay and I would rather not use it.
Mr. LELAND. In your first appearance before this committee Mr. McKean stated, “We believe that the legacy of the chief executive officer is to have someone available as their successor.”
Can you please give us a progress report on the search for your successor.
Mr. CASEY. Well, it is not anywhere near as active as I would like to have it. I feel that it is the obligation of the Governors who select the Postmaster General to do the formal search and so forth, and I have submitted names of people that I think should be considered. I put up three suggested candidates already. I cannot honestly tell you what the others have done.
Mr. LELAND. It is my understanding that when the Board of Governors hired you as the interim Postmaster General it was your understanding at least they purveyed the idea—that you should be an integral part of helping to find your successor. Is that not correct?
Mr. CASEY. That is correct, in sort of a staff role because I cannot select my own successor.
Mr. LELAND. I understand. I am getting conflicting reports about who will make the decision on the new Postmaster General. I suppose that Mr. McKean and the Board of Governors clearly will make that decision.
Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LELAND. It has been reported Mr. McKean is angry with you for discussing your thoughts on your successor with some of us in Congress. Can you comment on that? I am not going to press you to comment on that because I understand
Mr. CASEY. I think he would be much better qualified to comment on that. I have no trouble with him. He may have trouble with me.
Mr. LELAND. I heard several rumors that you and Mr. McKean are not getting along. Is that true?
Mr. CASEY. No.
Mr. LELAND. I noted with great interest that in your short tenure as Postmaster General you have not been reluctant to seriously disagree with the majority of the Board on several important issues. Can you share with us your opinions about the quality and competence of the Board? [Laughter.]
Mr. CASEY. Well, since I am not trying for tenure
Mr. LELAND. This is the perfect time. Be honest, Mr. Postmaster General.
Mr. CASEY. You are always asking me to change character.
What I would say to you is, it is not the individuals, but the structure that I object to. I think the Postal Reorganization Act has certain inherent shortcomings. I do not like the way the Governors of the Board have separate staffs, have the right to call committee